Posts

How Banks are Forcing a Cashless Society & Digital ID: ABC Afternoon Briefing with Greg Jennett

,

I discussed with Greg Jennett the cash drought and the news that Armaguard is in financial trouble, which could have repercussions for cash.

Armaguard is owned by transport magnate Lindsay Fox. His business interests extend not just to trucking but airports also. The Prime Minister attended Lindsay Fox’s lavish birthday party last year – a direct relationship there. Armaguard thinks it can use its connections with the Prime Minister to put its hand out for taxpayers money when there are other options available.

Banks are crying poor over the cost of their ATMs, but with profits at $31 billion last year, the banks could simply pay Armaguard more for their services. They could also stop blocking out smaller competitors like Commander Security, a small Australian cash handling company that wants to move cash for clients. Yet the banks refuse to accept their cash deposits. Why are banks forcing out profitable competitors? It appears so they can cry poor and put their hand out to the taxpayers.

The excuse that nobody uses cash anymore is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Banks are forcing people to use online transactions by closing bank branches – 2000 in the last 6 years, and by pulling out ATMs – 700 in the last 12 months. Banks charge fees on electronic transactions. They make nothing if you pay in cash and as they don’t know what you purchased, they can’t use that information to build your data profile.

The Optus outage last year demonstrated just how easy electronic commerce is to disrupt. Even before that outage drove people back to cash, usage had actually stabilised in Australia at $30 million cash withdrawals a month, with more than $100 billion of cash in circulation. Rumours of its demise are wishful thinking from our greedy, self-interested banks.

Banking is an essential service. If the banks are not going to fulfil their obligations and readily provide people with cash, then we need a people’s bank to do it.

Transcript

Greg Jennett: Now the use of less and less cash by Australians appears to be a choice made freely by consumers. But the problem is it’s having side effects right down the line all the way to the authorised secure trucks that transport cash from where it’s printed to the big four banks that buy from the Reserve Bank of Australia. Arma Guard is the one and only operator left in that market, and it’s in deep financial trouble with this side of its business that’s become a headache for the Big four banks, but also for some remote country towns, which you’re finding it hard to even get their hands on cash in some cases. One Nation, Malcolm Roberts, has been keeping an eye on the couch cash drought for quite a while now. He joined us here in the studio a little earlier. Malcolm Roberts. Welcome back to Afternoon Briefing. It’s been a while, so we’re glad you can join us. I know through monitoring committees and other aspects of the parliament here, you’ve been monitoring the decline of cash and its repercussions for quite some time. I thought we might focus today on some reporting about the possible decline of not one, but both cash in transit firms. These are the ones that officially transported around the country. Amaguard is under financial stress. What happens if they go under?

Malcolm Roberts: Well then banks need to find a way to move the cash. And what I think is going on, Greg, is that, well, first of all, Armaguard is owned by Lindsey Fox, who also owns other trucks, trucking businesses and also airlines. And he’s very close to Anthony Albanese who was at his birthday party recently. So, I think there’s some questions that need to be asked about that. But what’s happening is that Armaguard did a deal with the competition Consumer Commission just four months ago saying they promised if they were amalgamated, they would stay afloat for quite some time as a

Greg Jennett: … monopoly.

Malcolm Roberts: As a monopoly. And four months later they’re talking about shutting up shop. So that causes problems for the movement of cash and the banks want to get the taxpayers on the hook.

Greg Jennett: Alright, so who would or should pick up the tab if Armaguard is struggling here? Is it a government subsidy to them? Is it a renegotiated rate of payment from the Big Four banks? How does their financial predicament right now be alleviated?

Malcolm Roberts: There are competitors to Armaguard and one of them is Commander Security. It’s a small firm that can move cash around, but the banks refuse to deal with them. And the banks I think are even talking about banking commander security. They’re trying to wipe out competition. The other thing to remember, Greg, is you’ve taken a surprisingly strong stance for the banks. The banks have a social licence to fulfil. The banks operate in banking, and they must provide legal tender. That’s a fundamental to banking if you’re in banking, provide legal tender. And so, what we’re seeing is the bank’s trying to drive out cash and they shut 2000 branches in the last six years and they’ve shut 700 ATMs in the last 12 months. What they’re trying to do is drive out cash so that you have to use the bank digital transfers, which means you incur fees, which they’re missing at the moment, and also they miss your data. They want your data to build profiles about you.

Greg Jennett: Sure. So, in some country towns where bank branches are already thin or non-existent on the ground, I believe Australia Post has been playing a bit of a de facto role as a bank flying in cash in some cases at their own expense just to keep a town ticking over with cash. If we’re thinking laterally about solutions here, could Australia Post come into play with a funded obligation to be, I suppose, the bank of last resort in a country town?

Malcolm Roberts: Definitely the Australia Post licenced Post office is actually providing those services now, many banking services now, and they’re doing it for fees that some of the banks won’t disclose. Others will disclose. So, we would like to go beyond that and see if People’s bank, because the original Commonwealth Bank before it was privatised in 1995, was back in 1910 when it was formed by the Fisher Labour Government. It provided a vital service. It put our country on its feet, and it provided enormous competition to the globalist banks that own our big four banks. And so, what we need now is that same kind of competition from a people’s bank and the post office is one form of people’s bank that could be extended not just to a post office with banking services, but to a proper bank.

Greg Jennett: And should they be funded because under their obligations at the moment, Australia Post are in effect funded to do certain things but not the transportation of cash.

Malcolm Roberts: I think if they’re providing a service, they need to be compensated for that service. They need to be funded. And cash is a vital service. The availability of cash is vital because it provides competition, it provides choice, it provides freedom to escape the tyranny of the major banks.

Greg Jennett: As you’ve asked questions of different agencies in various committees on this over time, are you satisfied that they are focusing their attention on what looks like a pretty tight squeeze right now on Armaguard? We’re in an urgent state of resolution, aren’t we? Yes.

Malcolm Roberts: I think there’s an underlying premise to your question too, Greg. And that is that cash is dying. It’s not dying. It has declined until the recent years, but we still have 30 million cash transactions for withdrawal of cash [monthly] at the moment. A lot of people need cash. The Reserve Bank itself did a survey recently that said one in four older Australians can’t handle the internet – they must have cash. We also have $100 billion in cash in the economy. And so, cash is here to stay. And what we’ve seen is, I’ve been on a committee to inquire into the closure of bank branches in rural towns. And what we’ve seen is a deliberate push. It is deliberate, Greg to shut down bank branches and to shut down ATMs to drive people to towards cash. So, it’s people that decline in cash until recently when there’s been an uptick in cash, the decline has been driven by the banks for their own short-term and long-term money.

Greg Jennett: So, you’re saying this isn’t entirely market led by the customers, it’s actually being driven by them, but that’s irreversible, isn’t it? This trend towards bank closures only Last week in Western Australia, Bankwest converted itself as a subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia into virtually a digital only bank. And we’ve had people on this programme, Malcolm suggest to us that that is a bit of a test bed for where others will certainly follow.

Malcolm Roberts: I think the banks will try to do whatever they can to minimise their costs and to maximise their revenue. But we must remember that banking is an essential service. Banks should not be controlling it at the moment, people. So, what we need is banks that provide a service and fulfil their social licence, they have an obligation to satisfy customers all over the country. And that’s what we need. And if they can’t do it, then let’s have a people’s bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be.

Greg Jennett: Alright, well we’ll leave you to keep an eye on all things related to Cash Gold and the Malcolm Roberts in your work as a senator. And thank you once again for joining us today on this emerging story around Armagaurd. Thanks so much.

Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Greg. Pleasure to be here.

Greg Jennett: Alright, we’re pretty much done with afternoon briefing for today.

/17 Comments/by

ACCC Needs More Power Against Foreign Predatory Billionaires

,

I’m concerned about the increasing influence of large, predatory merchant banks on the Australian economy. You’ve heard the names mentioned — Blackrock, First State, State Street, Vanguard and Norges. While their shareholdings may be small, typically 5 – 8% each, when they act together these shareholdings amount to a controlling interest over targeted industries.

These include our retailing duopoly, Coles and Woolworths and our Big-4 banks: Commonwealth, ANZ, NAB and Westpac/St George.

I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about the way that our banking sector behave like a monopoly — one set of owners with multiple logos. The answers were encouraging but the ACCC needs more power to control these predatory merchant banks.

I also asked about de-banking, which is the process that the Big-4 use their market power to harm or close businesses that compete with them, including cryto exchanges and bullion dealers. The biggest competitor of all though, is actually cash. Physical money competes with more traceable and profitable electronic banking. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and generally trying to engineer a cash-free society for their profit and control.

These questions were my first to ACCC in quite some time. The answers were sharp and well informed and I look forward to developing these lines of inquiry next estimates.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t call the ACCC very often because it seems you do a very good job. To improve banking competition—and that’s needed—do we need more regulation or more independent banks providing competition? Which is it? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We want both. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay! The ACCC refused permission for ANZ to acquire Suncorp bank on competition grounds? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We did. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was a very good decision. Would it improve competition in Australian banking if Suncorp was now purchased by a third party not currently involved in banking? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, I should note that ANZ and Suncorp have taken an action for review in the tribunal and that decision will come down next week, and so we await that decision. It may or may not be the same decision as the ACCC’s. However, our decision reflected that we were not satisfied that there would not be a substantial lessening of competition and either Suncorp continuing independent, as it is now, or being acquired by another party—one of the possible alternative transactions that was identified was, for instance, merger with an alternative regional bank or smaller bank—or by a party that is not currently a participant in the banking sector, would each retain the independent, competitive constraint. 

Senator ROBERTS: In your progress report on the digital platform services inquiry, you made the point that the ACCC continues to recommend the introduction of new and expanded industry-wide consumer measures, including prohibition on unfair trading practices. What industries or perhaps what context informed that request for more power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC is looking for that reform across the economy. We do see that, in terms of digital platforms—for instance, in online trading, subscription traps are a good example—there is a significant capacity to have unfair practices and processes that deprive consumers of the ability to make informed choices. But we do see these problems across the economy. The government is proceeding through a consultation process, which will conclude in November of this year, and we hope this will result in the introduction of an unfair trading practices prohibition across the economy. 

Senator ROBERTS: As to PEXA—I think they’re the conveyancing people? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would PEXA’s near-monopoly in electronic conveyancing be an area where you would like more power to keep an eye on their use of market power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are hopeful that ARNECC, which is the current regulator, will be in a position to require compliance with the steps towards interoperability, which had been hoped for and planned, so that there will be a capacity to result in meaningful competition. 

Senator ROBERTS: You approved the merger of the Armaguard and Prosegur cash handling businesses—against opposition from the free market, which fears losing the ability to negotiate on price—with the justification of keeping these businesses going. Are you confident the merged entity is viable and capable of holding 90 per cent of the Australian market long-term—let’s say, up to 2030? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct that we did approve that merger on condition of an undertaking. We were particularly conscious of the matters that were put before us relating to the loss of viability for two competing providers of cash-in-transit services, as there was such a significant decrease in the use of cash, particularly brought on during the period of COVID. Under that undertaking, which is effective for three years, the merged entity is required to continue to offer the services to all locations that are currently serviced. It also limits the ability to reduce service levels and raise prices. We do monitor compliance with all undertakings we accept. We do know that the merged entity states that there have been further changes that call into question its continued viability. We have granted an interim authorisation that was sought by 20 members of the Australian Banking Association, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Treasury, Australia Post and suppliers of cash-in-transit services—a whole set—that were seeking to be able to negotiate to try to reach a resolution for continued cash-in-transit services on acceptable terms. As a condition of that interim authorisation, we required that there be public reports monthly in relation to the discussions, because it was quite a significant authorisation that we enabled for those negotiations. We have just this week received the first report, and it’s available on our register. 

Senator ROBERTS: Banks are refusing to accept or issue cash to profitable small players like Commander Security. This company has been de-banked by the big four and now even a customer owned bank. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and refusing to give cash to their own customers in a situation where identity and use of cash has been established. Cash is, in effect, a competitor to the bank’s dream and the customer’s nightmare of making a fee on every transaction and service every person makes. Are banks misusing their market power to eliminate cash as a competitor to their own electronic payment systems and drive customers to fee-paying services? That’s what it appears to be. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We do currently have a misuse of market power action relating to financial services in the court against MasterCard. We certainly look closely at misuse of market power questions in relation to financial services. There are a series of complex questions in there, including on the closure of branches, which APRA does monitor and report on. We have also reported on our concerns in relation to the manner in which there is muted competition between the banks—for instance, in relation to retail deposit products—and sought recommended regulation that will better inform customers so they can better exercise choice in the products that they acquire. It is difficult to separate what changes are occurring commercially because of the changes in the economy— 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is difficult to know who’s the horse and who’s the cart. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly—what the boundaries are. But we do look at all these questions very carefully, both in terms of enforcement and in terms of monitoring, and we are hoping to continue financial services monitoring because we think they are essential services for Australian families. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the Senate inquiry into the closure of rural bank branches? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes, we are. 

Senator ROBERTS: It seems quite clear from the one that I’ve taken part in that it’s the banks driving the reduction in cash. It seems very clear to us, but, anyway, that’s a matter for you. Banks are refusing to provide banking services to their customers. It’s not just private cash handling companies; it’s bullion dealers and legitimate cryptocurrencies being de-banked. Last week, Bankwest limited how much their customers could spend on buying crypto. Is this another case of the banks misusing their market power to harm the operation of a competitor, and is it worthy of your scrutiny? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC participated in a working group and taskforce, together with APRA, the Reserve Bank, AUSTRAC and Treasury, with a concern about de-banking. One of the recommendations from that was that there needs to be better data collection, to be able to better measure and monitor the pattern of and conduct in de-banking, and also that there needs to be more clarity in terms of the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing requirements, which are bases upon which banks say that they need to make risk assessments and, at times, de-bank. So there was a desire to try to reduce that conduct. 

CHAIR: This is your last question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Something that few people seem to be aware of—I’m guessing you are aware of that—is that the major banks, the big four banks, would seem to be one bank with four logos. I say that because their services are similar, their strategies are similar and their modes of operating are similar. They’re largely owned, as I said, by super funds who don’t take an active interest and by mums and dads who don’t take an active interest. That leaves a controlling interest in the hands of four or five major, predatory global companies: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State and one other. They control, it seems, the big four banks. The banks have enormous power here. They have enormous legal power. They’ve got deep pockets to hire the best lawyers. They’ve got complex regulations that they can hide behind and with which they can really beat up on an individual. They’ve got enormous market power. I think they have 90 per cent of the cash deposits. They have enormous financial power, and, as I said, they hide behind regulations. 

CHAIR: This is a very long last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any thought of giving scrutiny or understanding to the companies that I mentioned—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State—and their influence over each of the big four banks that they control? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We’ve certainly been contemplating the benefits of continued monitoring, particularly in relation to key services that the banks provide. Also, a part of the Suncorp-ANZ decision looked at concerns in terms of the capacity of the major banks with very similar business models to engage in a problem of what is called ‘concerted effects’. In effect, their responses to competitive signals are similar because of their similar structures. So we are conscious of those risks, and we do seek, both through monitoring and through powers that we have in relation to concerted practices, to watch carefully for these sorts of concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: We do know that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street control a lot of major companies around the world and control a lot of companies and a lot of industries. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Optus Failure Demonstrates Cash is King 

I called on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks stop removing cash and stop closing branches and ATMs. The Optus outage reminds us that persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism is insanity.

How did we get here? The current concept of a ‘digital identity’ was originally dreamed up at a 2015 World Economic Forum conference in collaboration with Accenture, a Fortune Global 500 company.

If the government’s Identification Verification Services Bill passes it will not only open the door to hackers, but it will also offer them the key. A single data file will make identity theft easier.  If the government centralises the private data it collects from citizens, on-sells the records to the commercial market while simultaneously mandating the use of digitised personal records within the economy, it will be installing digital socialism. A digital prison no less.

Government and its parasitic billionaire mates want to become the middlemen of all transactions between customers and businesses. One Nation says NO! 

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw attention to yesterday’s Optus outage. Payment terminals using the Optus network went down, requiring businesses to close or accept cash payments. The Optus failure makes a mockery of our arrogant, lying, profit-gouging banks’ campaign to totally remove cash from our society and to remove bank branches. I call on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks do not remove cash from one more branch, do not close one more branch and do not close one more ATM. Anything less is asking for trouble the next time the internet goes down.

The Optus failure reminds Australia of the insanity of persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism. What happens if the government’s Identity Verification Services Bill passes and these myriad identification services are replaced with one central government run digital ID, complete with your biometric data? It will be a hacker’s paradise, with everything hackers need for identity theft and fraud located in a single data file. All that’s missing from the government’s digital ID plans is a massive sign saying, ‘Hack me!’ With digital ID, the government is not protecting us from identity theft; it’s making identity theft easier. If digital ID and digital currency are implemented, the next time Optus or Telstra go down, every Australian’s life stops. There will be no transport, no telephone, no keeping track of children and no buying anything. The government is creating a pinch point every time the internet goes down—a chokehold that comes at a terrible human and economic cost.

The government’s predatory billionaire mates are salivating at the control that digital ID and digital currency will give these parasites. The government and its parasitic billionaire mates aren’t good enough to make the technology work. It’s going to stuff everything up and screw everyday Australians and small businesses. To a digital prison, One Nation says no.

/14 Comments/by

Australia Post Flies in the Face of a Cashless Agenda

,

Australia Post’s Bank@Post is expected to fill the hole left by banks closing branches in many rural and regional towns around Australia. I asked Group CEO and Managing Director, Paul Graham, for his views about how that’s going so far. His forthright response confirmed what bank closures mean in the communities where Australia Post is left to try and pick up the pieces. It is not the automatic solution the banks have suggested during the bank closures inquiry, which I knew from constituent feedback through my office.

Customers, explained Paul Graham, are looking for a broader scope of services than they are equipped to deliver. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they used to through their banking branches. Provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst there are those who say cash is going to die, Mr Graham certainly doesn’t see that in many demographics and areas of Australia.

With support from banks, Australia Post could extend the range of banking services. Whether for small businesses, the provision of cash, or even managing large numbers of gold coins following fundraisers, Australia Post rightly sees its over-the-counter Bank@Post services as essential.

More regional and remote towns are being left without a bank. Coober Pedy is a good example of a cash town given the nature of its work. Australia Post is now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because the banks have all left.

There is obviously a vacuum left by the bank closures and post offices are well positioned to fill it with the right support.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. My questions are fairly short. At the Senate inquiry into regional bank branch closures, I asked Westpac CEO Mr King, ‘How much do you pay Australia Post for a community representation fee?’ The response on notice was: Westpac is happy to provide a specific figure, including the Community Representation Fee, however our contract with Australia Post requires both parties to agree to the release of any commercial details within the contract. Westpac would agree to Australia Post providing these details to the Committee. Are you happy to share those details today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, we are not. Those are commercially confidential. We have a number of agreements with many banks and institutions. They differ from bank to bank. That would disclose what we believe is
commercially sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: Westpac is happy for you to disclose their contract.

Mr Graham: Again, they may be happy but that’s one side of the contract. We have contracts with over 81 financial institutions and would not be comfortable sharing that sensitive information.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Commonwealth Bank the same question and also on notice received the same reply, as one would expect from an oligopoly. Are you able to share the Commonwealth Bank’s community representation fee today or on notice?

Mr Graham: No, Senator. We will take the same approach to that. As I say, we have many contracts with many banks. It is commercially sensitive. Disclosing what one bank pays versus what another bank pays would create commercial risk for Australia Post.

Senator ROBERTS: How so? The bank is happy.

Mr Graham: In that we are negotiating with 81 different companies and, if they were aware of what other companies are paying, that would put us under a very difficult commercial situation.

Senator ROBERTS: Show them the high-price contracts.

Mr Graham: It would be good if we could do that, but it’s unfortunate the way that the negotiations would work.

Senator ROBERTS: It would help you if you picked the top one. Are you happy with the fees you’re receiving from your banking partners in Bank@Post for providing their customers with services?

Mr Graham: When the Bank@Post agreement was put in place three years ago, the scope of that was for what we would call rudimentary or very basic consumer banking services—the ability to deposit some money and take out some money. It’s fair to say that since that service has been put in place and since we’ve seen an increase in the number of bank closures the pressure that has been placed on our post offices that provide Bank@Post has increased. Customers are looking for a broader scope of services. Small businesses particularly feel that they’re not able to access what they would traditionally access through their banking branches. And the provision of cash has become an issue. Whilst a lot of people say cash is going to die, we certainly don’t see that, particularly in certain demographics and also in certain neighbourhoods where cash is still prevalent.

When we were set up, we were never established, from both a physical and a service perspective, to deal with cash. We’re happy to extend the range of services we provide to our customers at Bank@Post, be it small business or the provision of cash, but we would need that to be funded by the banks. A good example is Coober Pedy. It is a cash town given the nature of its work. We are now flying cash into that town on a weekly basis because there are no banks remaining in Coober Pedy.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very pleased to hear that you’re supporting cash and keeping it alive. A lot of people are starting to swing back now, because they know it’s essential for freedom. Would Australia Post like to offer a wider range of banking services from an existing partner, such as Suncorp? If so, what services would you like to provide?

Mr Graham: As I referred to in my previous answer, we are seeing an increasing desire by regional towns, particularly when we are the only banking service remaining, to increase the range of services for small business—be that cash floats for the local hairdresser or the local coffee shop. One example recently was a footy team and the Country Women’s Association both ran a gold coin fundraiser over a weekend and our post office was inundated with 1,800 gold coins on the Monday. It was never equipped to handle that type of cash. We see there’s an ability for us to increase the range of services we provide, certainly for small businesses, and for the provision of cash for those small businesses. However, that would need an investment—in some cases in physical infrastructure, for safes and security, and also additional systems and training for our team—which we are prepared to do. That would obviously require support from the banks to enable those services to be extended.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d welcome something like Suncorp, which is for sale right now? It’s sale to ANZ was blocked.

Mr Graham: We provide services to Suncorp today through Bank@Post—they are a Bank@Post customer—and 81 other financial institutions.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to commit to Suncorp or anything like that, but does the concept of having a bank with branches already, albeit not as many as you have, appeal to you?

Mr Graham: That’s a question of policy, which is for the government. We’re very happy to provide our over-the-counter services, which we are well-equipped to do, certainly for basic banking services. But as I said, if we were to extend the range of those services we would need to look at those post offices on a case-by-case basis. A town in the Snowy is another case in point where the last bank left and our post office there does not have disability access, so, again, that challenge comes on Australia Post and we work with the banks to try to solve that. We see over-the-counter services and providing Bank@Post services, particularly in regional and remote areas, as essential services and we continue to be invested in those services.

Senator ROBERTS: Something Christine Holgate did a very fine job of doing was to listen to and address the problems of the LPOs—the licenced post offices. We haven’t heard much from them lately, so that is probably a pretty good sign, but I’d like to know what you think of your relationship with the LPOs. How’s that going? They’re fundamental.

Mr Graham: Yes, they are. They make up more than two-thirds of our branch network. They are partners in our network. We deal with both the key associations. I think our relationship is a very positive one. We are very transparent on what we are doing, the investments we’re making. We’re currently rolling out our PostPlus new point-of-sale system through every post office in the country—the largest single investment that Australia Post has ever made, over $250 million. This will create efficiencies for both our corporate and licenced post offices, and also create a better service experience for our customers.
Our relationship with them is healthy. We certainly listen to them. We spend a lot of time out in their post offices, understanding their needs and their challenges. I also spend a lot of time out; it’s one of the best parts of my job. But we also see, in certain areas, where they are financially challenged because of the reduction in foot traffic, because of the digitisation of services, and, as I mentioned in my opening address, certainly metropolitan areas where there can be significant overlap, we do see cannibalisation of licenced post offices by their fellow licensees in some of those areas. It is a changing financial environment for many of them, and we look to continue to support them where we can. Bank@Post certainly helps, as does the growth we’re seeing in our parcel business, and also investing in new systems which helps them become more efficient and better at serving their customers.

/3 Comments/by